Volume 7, Issue 36
What is an issue of concern is America’s legacy, unique responsibility and mission to defend freedom globally. In today’s geopolitical environment, the lines of definition are blurring in reference to our national mission. Freedom is under both foreign and domestic attack, exacerbated internally by leaders’ confusion about what true freedom means anyway.
What is the definition of freedom? How is it defined by an individual?
The dispute between President Trump and National Security Advisor Bolton was not about whether freedom must be protected. It was about the means and strategy to execute policy. The Taliban, left to their own means, will destroy freedom. There is no compromise with their cultural beliefs. Yet construing a world wherein enemies of freedom are managed and restricted is one picture of freedom maintained. The sacrifices made by military families is, in one context, a limitation on their freedom. The national resources required to support a war is a compromise on economic freedom. And the freedom of the citizens of Afghanistan is totally reliant on America’s enforcement of respect for global liberty.
Balancing the components of the equation for freedom executed is complicated. Thought, compassion, and universal respect for every citizen and their position in life is critical to righteous policy.
In 1980, upon the election of President Ronald Reagan, Republicans captured the Senate for the first time since 1952, and then for only two years. Senator Howard Baker from Tennessee became the Majority Leader in 1981. The issues of the day were a strong national defense, the threat of the Soviet Union, less government, fewer taxes, and states’ rights. These issues confronted were the genesis for policy of the federal government dealing with the issues facing society today. Senator Baker’s foundational premise for enacting what was then substantial legislative reform, asked the question: is this fair to all concerned? President Reagan simply inquired: is it the right thing to do for the advancement of the foundational mission statement of the United States?
Conflicts and political debate in Washington DC during President Reagan’s term were at times heated. Emotion is always present in an environment of strongly held political beliefs. Yet, in addressing the equation of fairness in freedom, all felt included in the application. There was inclusion in the perceived results.
What is important is for every citizen to determine his or her definition of freedom for themselves. In this exercise, one must decide what one wants from government for their individual pursuit of happiness. Then, upon understanding one’s definition of freedom, one must ask: does the policy necessary to support this freedom require restriction, imposition, or limits on anyone else’s freedom? In the design of a fair and balanced equation for government policy, taxes, regulations, requirements, standardization, and infringements, must be considered.
What is the point? Isn’t this what the current presidential debates are all about in context now? No. The current debates are centered on personal privilege and idealism without any view of the impact on freedom to the general citizenry.
The clearest example of this is nationalized healthcare. Eliminating private health insurance limits the freedom of 80% of the population. Implemented to achieve what? Supposedly, such policy will benefit about 7% of the population currently underserved. Consideration should be given to higher taxes to pay for specific programs directed to the poor. The poor are served. The equation of freedom has been addressed.
This idea of advancing freedom while protecting security or emphasizing the needs of the poor are not unique to the United States. Great Britain is facing government anxiety in whether or how to leave the European Union. From Central America to Africa to Europe to Asia, governments struggle in the execution of the freedom equation. Even dictatorial governments like China are experiencing governmental stress from Hong Kong citizens’ protests.
John Bolton is a good American who got caught up in the strategic conflict of protecting freedom from foreign threats. Political parties today have abandoned their mandates to clearly define freedom in the domestic equation. The current presidential debates have not clarified this definition of the right thing to do in the implementation of a freedom equation.
Let us never forget that the individual problems of any sovereign state in the world are partially of their own making. The Taliban embraces an ideological concept that has defied righteousness in freedom for centuries. They have no one to blame but themselves for the results. They make no claim that the world would be a better place for individual liberty if their doctrinaire ideology were accepted.
The United States has been admirable in its moral commitment to its foundational purpose. All men are created equal with unalienable rights derived from the Creator.
On the threshold of the next Democratic presidential debate, every citizen should educate themselves on the policy positions offered by the candidates. Analysis of the impact on individual lives should be measured not only in the policies’ projected results, but in their honoring of the original directive of the Founding Fathers, the facilitation of universal freedom.
So should the same protocol be applied to President Trump and his policies.
Politics is really not that complicated. One only needs to ask a simple question. Does the policy proposed enhance freedom fairly?
In seeking a righteous equation for freedom, we each must remember the promises of 1776: the Declaration of Independence and a new order; 1787: the Constitution and codification of limited government; 1789: the Constitution’s ratification and the collective sacrifice for the good of the greater order; 1791: the Bill of Rights and the reconfirmation of individual liberty; 1861-1865: the Civil War and the recommitment to the extension of universal freedom.
In the 2019-2020 Presidential election cycle, reflecting upon the original hope of liberty manifested is not trivial in objective. What the United States started is transcendent. Our principles are eternal. Our guardianship of freedom for the world is absolute.
Freedom is under attack because it is not properly defined in its purest essence of truth. It is the pursuit of this truth for a fair equation of freedom that presents freedom in challenge.
My name is Marc Nuttle and this is what I believe.
What do you believe?